Married Without Children

Uncategorized

If you were dating but knew that you would not/ could not have children and she pops the question – do you still say yes to marriage?

It makes me wonder why gays were so hellbent on being allowed to get married. Could they not have just opted for some sort of civil-union with similar benefits? Is it not possible that there was a diabolical plan behind the gay marriage agenda that was designed to both further deteriorate the God sanctified breeder-marriages and take all the gaiety out of being gay?

Why not just opt for a lifetime of Friday night at the movies with free popcorn, Coke, and Milk Duds? Is it because (and this question is especially targeted at the girls) there is no such thing as a free lunch?

Bonus question: All time best movie theater snack?

Anybody else immediately think of HotTamales?

Unknown's avatar

Published by ST

USMC Mustang 0302/0303

Published

43 thoughts on “Married Without Children”

  1. Easiest first: Theater snack: Sno-Caps (Sugar-dipped chocolate drops). Next-easiest: Since physical circumstances re: bearing children made that a non-choice. Yes to marriage with adopted, or without, children; since greater union between and greater holiness for husband and wife – along with openness to children – are goals of married life. (I was one who supported civil unions for committed same-sex partners, but not adoption, fostering, or surrogacy, back when all of this could be debated and questioned, btw.)

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. I think your premise that a twofold rearguard action dismissed heteronormative marriage as a building-block of society, while simultaneously removing any hint of uniqueness/otherness – as a ‘positive’ aspect of same-sex attraction – is right on target. The New Puritans didn’t want anyone, anywhere to be happy, just like the old ones didn’t.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  4. Best movie snack after popcorn: junior mints.

    Not sure what you mean by “no such thing as a free lunch”: I know what that means, but don’t know what that means in this context 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      3. DeNanda, a gentleman never charges a fee. Ladies should only date gentlemen.

        While stating the obvious I may as well add this pearl of wisdom: If everyone were to start obeying all of the Ten Commandments tomorrow, there would suddenly be a lot less crime and punishment.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. This may not ‘nest” where I want it, ST, but modeling true gentlemanliness – and the making of gentlewomen – is quietly catching on again. (Apparently, it’s retro enough to be cool.) I did date someone who purported to be a gentleman, long ago, with whom a lifetime of “Dinner and A Movie” would’ve been lovely – had he but trusted me with the truth. As it is, we’ve gone our separate ways. I’ve “met” you, and many of the “Kaffeeklatsch” cohort, and history continues to be made for all of us: Cheers!

        Liked by 2 people

    1. They (HotTamales) used to be one of my faves, especially when I was short on dough and could not afford popcorn; however, they are not available at my local kino theater. You could drop a couple of those HotTamale ‘tabs’ into your Coke for an exotic and spicy experience.

      I think movies were 35¢ and HotTamales were a nickel. So it did not take us too long to collect enough empty Coke bottles to afford the double feature matinee.

      FYI: кинотеатр in Cyrillic script.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  6. The sole reason for marriage is protection of female sexuality: guy wants to be sure the kids he’s leaving his stuff or title to are really his—and also, literal physical protection, since women are weaker. Neither of those make sense today: paternity can be easily determined, and women can buy guns and more importantly we have rights at law, can earn money, own property, bring lawsuits, etc. But there are two separate concepts at issue here: marriage, meaning ongoing maintenance of a domestic unit, which in our country anyone can do with person(s) of his/her choice, without a ceremony—-and The Wedding.
    . In my state statutes, the word “holy” is used in an unqualified sense only once: in the phrase “holy matrimony”. It was this governmental hallowing which gay couples wanted, and which religious heterosexual couples wanted to keep exclusively for themselves. That’s why nobody on either side was content with civil unions: too close to the Holy for heterosexual, not close enough to the holy for the gays.

    I’m with you, ST: I couldnt see why gays wanted to get into a status which is just going to be expensive and unpleasant to get out of, when nobody cares if they wanna set up housekeeping together, It’s the ceremony, the wedding, the “sacred” vows, that caused all the controversy.
    Re Obergefell, SCOTUS shoulda just said: govt is outta the wedding game: if you establish a domestic unit of any kind, you will be taxed a certain way and parties will have certain rights. But if you want a “wedding” that’s up to your religious denomination. Requiring the ceremony or “solemnization” AT ALL is archaic, as though we still recognized baptism as a marker of citizenship.
    And I love malted milk balls. ( I was gonna write Whoppers, but I don’t want you to think I fabricated all of the above.)

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  7. Thanks, H, for mentioning my “noisy” favorite movie snack!…I didn’t have them when sitting near others because they ‘crunch’, and I’d get shushed. -giggle- Agree re: the separation of church/synagogue/mosque, etc. and state question, too.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Wondering though – as I did at the time – whether the non-recognition of religious ceremonies by the State removes the faith-based point of view from the public square? It has a right/duty to be present in decision-making involving families as a building-block of societies, doesn’t it? Still curious about the balance here. If we effectively restrict “freedom of religion” to ‘freedom of (private) worship’, why bother at all? H, care to enlighten me? I’d appreciate it. (I ask personally, out of interest, not just rhetorically or snidely – as was the case by some – in another setting.)

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. I have not studied this issue, or even thought about it that much, so take this with a grain of salt, but I very inclined to be totally against anything that replaces freedom of religion with freedom of private worship. My late husband came from Scotland, and the hostility that exists there not just towards religion but towards anyone who believes in God at all has to be seen to be believed: in many circles in Scotland, you will be shunned if you speak about God at all, and you will be told that religious beliefs should be kept private. But atheists are totally free to speak about their lack of belief all they want.

        Scotland has not gotten the state out of the marriage business; Scotland never gets the state out of anything, but I fear that “getting the state out of the marriage business” is a let’s cut the baby in two kind of a solution. It is an attempt to placate everyone, but the only people it will really satisfy are militant atheists. Most atheists in America are not militant, and some of the greatest people I know are atheists: I have nothing whatsoever against atheists, but after what I have seen and experienced in Scotland, I am not willing to budge one inch to placate militant atheists. It’s almost to the point and may actually have reached the point where if militant atheists are for something, I am against it, and visa versa, even if I know nothing about the issue. That may seem stupid, and maybe it is, but I have seen with my own eyes what militant atheists are like when they are in charge, as they are in Scotland: I will oppose anything they want with every breath in my body. Those who question me on this are invited to go to Scotland, tell people that you are a screaming leftist who hates organized religion but that you do believe in God, and see what happens: in most cases, the fact that you are a leftist who hates organized religion will not make up for the fact that you believe in God and are willing to talk about it; even if people agree with you about everything else under the sun, they will hate you for talking about God. It’s really bad: I don’t want that to happen here.

        So, I say, keep the state in the marriage business. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Gay couples continue to want children through adoption or do artificial insemination and pay a woman to carry the child. This has been going on for a couple of decades and interestingly, the MSM has yet to do a follow-up on how these children are faring. I am curious indeed.

    “Could they not have just opted for some sort of civil-union with similar benefits?” I initially objected to this because that requires the govt to give every couple who live together (regardless of sexual orientation) benefits and cost companies billions. I lived with my husband for seven years and we were not granted those perks. Why should we have been excluded?

    When my husband and I finally married we both knew we were not interested in having children. However, the sanctity of marriage is still important because it is not, as many like to claim, a mere “piece of paper.” It is an important commitment that creates stability and even economic prosperity in society.

    My greatest objection to SSM and even abortion was that both became legal due to the judicial system when in fact, they were clearly legislative decisions. SSM worries me also because I’m waiting for polygamists to start a protest to be able to enjoy legal status.

    Polygamy concerns me far more than SSM because of the burdens it would impose (and has) upon society. 36 children and one father? 6 women for every man? What happens to the unlucky men in a community who have no women left to marry? Also, the states that are heavily populated by large polygamist families with few income earners have huge burdens placed upon their welfare systems. Taxpayers end up supporting most of the “wives” who often can’t leave their families to provide additional income.

    It is a shame that such a noble institution as marriage has been twisted and re-defined to satisfy a political agenda.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  9. Agree, Liz – and largely, JaC…Am interested in H.’s take, as well, though, because the legal ins-and-outs around all of family law are so twisted into pretzels; I appreciate her willingness to cut to the chase in all this.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  11. It seems like the faith community – rather than the State – has largely been invited-out already, and that the State controls the “hooking up for an indeterminate period of time” business…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  12. *In fairness to Scottish people who hate those who talk about God, a big part of their extreme discomfort with anyone who talks about faith at all is Northern Ireland. In America, different religions have been living together in total or almost total peace and harmony for a very long time, if not forever. In the old days, there was some discrimination, but there has never been a religious war in America. People in Scotland grew up seeing the carnage of Northern Ireland on the tv every night of the week; in some cases, their sons and brothers served and possibly died there. They associate religion with war; they associate people who talk about God with people who start idiotic wars, and it’s very cold comfort to them that Catholics and Protestants in America get along pretty well. Scotland is a different universe, and the hostility so many Scottish people have towards those who talk about God becomes far more understandable if you know where they are coming from. But, we still shouldn’t budge an inch to militant atheists.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  13. “My late husband came from Scotland, and the hostility that exists there not just towards religion but towards anyone who believes in God at all has to be seen to be believed: in many circles in Scotland, you will be shunned if you speak about God at all, and you will be told that religious beliefs should be kept private. But atheists are totally free to speak about their lack of belief all they want.”

    Judith; this is something of which I was completely unaware. As we are discussing my ancestors as well, I’d appreciate your take on why? Rebellion against the Church of England?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  14. As usual, I’m so glad ST sparked the conversation – in his inimitable fashion. It’s so refreshing here that even longstanding subjects like this one don’t seem ‘done-to-death’ (as they did over there).

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  15. I’m asking this question because I sense the war in Northern Ireland really had nothing to do with religion; it was about the ancient feud between the haves and the have nots. Of course my opinion is influenced by friends in Dublin who are prosperous and well-educated and believe this was an economic conflict.There was a bit of nationalism that created tension as well, but I still sense it was more about income re-distribution.

    Again, your thoughts?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. I’ve seen similar thoughts that denominations were labels that stood for centuries of social, educational, and economic disenfranchisement vs. entitlement by usurpation (See “The Great Hunger”/penal laws, etc.) Comparisons to our Civil War seem apt…

      Maybe Scotland’s anti-faith climate has a generational component, too? It’s like the whole country is in a ‘crisis of meaning’/loss of moorings, as Viktor Frankl would say.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  18. There is SO much here, and I’m just taking a brief hiatus from the Polish wedding reception we’re attending. It is ..healing my heart, so wonderful, so innocent and joyous!! Does non-recognition of religious ceremonies by the state remove from the public square? IMHO, state recognition is completely superfluous to the uncivil rite of a wedding. This is the public declaration of a mate in the biological sense. It is bigger than any polity, it predates any formal government. It simply is not in the gift of government.
    OTOH, our Pilgrim Fathers Bradford and his crew, , in accordance with the practice of the Dutch Protestants among whom they had been living, didn’t recognize weddings as a sacrament at all. It was purely a matter of obtaining a civil license (because a Jesus Himself didn’t get married nor did He perform any weddings). But I don’t think you’d say religion had been removed from the “public square” of the Plymouth Colony!
    Gotta get back to
    Les Noces—bye for now from Poland!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  19. Ok, my thoughts on why Scotland is the way it is: I don’t know 🙂 A combination of a lot of different reasons, probably-same reasons some Americans are atheists, but it did seem to me that even Scottish people who are believers are incredibly wary of talking about religion, and it isn’t that all of them are afraid of atheist disapproval: they have serious concerns that talk of God can lead to violence. I suspect that living in a country where religious wars are actually a thing contributes to that, and the Scottish people I know would agree with me about that-they are the ones who suggested it to me, I didn’t come up with that idea on my own. 🙂

    Granted, just because some Scottish people site war as a reason to be atheist doesn’t mean that it’s the real reason they are atheist, but I wouldn’t discount it. Having lived in America all my life, I rarely thought about Northern Ireland, but it loomed very large in my husband’s mind; how could it not have? Robin was never an atheist, and he did believe in God, but he never discussed God with anyone other than me, and I really don’t think he was cowed by the atheists-certainly, not in America, but not in Scotland either. Robin was fiercely independent; and he wasn’t afraid to get into a fight, but Northern Ireland loomed very large in his mind. I was always trying to get him to relax about it-I would point out to him that Protestants and Catholics in America get along great, but he never really did totally relax about it. He relaxed enough to develop a genuine fondness for crazy native born Americans (he thought we were crazy, in the nicest possible way) who go around talking about how much we love God, and how much God loves us, and how wonderful God is, etc…but he never relaxed enough to talk about his own personal beliefs. And this was a guy who wore a Trump hat in Massachusetts: normally, he was not reluctant to express his views, but he wouldn’t touch the issue of God with a ten foot pole, or a 20 foot pole, or a 1000 foot pole. 🙂

    The views I expressed in an earlier comment were based on totally anecdotal experiences I had with people I met. So, I went to Wikipedia to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scotland; for information relevant to this conversation, scroll to the very bottom of the article to the section titled “Secularization” According to Wikipedia, Scotland is “the fastest secularizing nation in the history of the world” Secular humanists conduct more weddings in Scotland than either Protestants or Catholics; I met at least several Scots who proudly described themselves as secular humanists; secular humanist funerals are also a big thing there.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  20. * I mis spoke when I said that religious wars are a thing in Scotland: it has been a while since that was true, but being that they are part of Great Britain and very close to Northern Ireland, that whole situation looms much larger for them than it does for those born and raised in America.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  21. JaC, thoughts about your comments (that dovetail nicely w/my pastor/retired mil. chaplain’s homily tonight.)…Gonna compose them and paste, or I’ll get keyboardist’s cramp…Wait one?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. Here you go, JaC…

        “Secularization” is a faith all its own; for an atomized, fragmented, personal-identity driven society. Materialism can be a subset of secularization; so can certain kinds of sociopolitical activism.

        Life/personhood denying activities (abortion, infanticide, government-sanctioned/mandated euthanasia, suicide) can be viewed as pseudo-sacraments by secularists because they emphasize the ‘autonomy’ of the woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant/want to give birth, as well as the lack of ‘usefulness’ or ‘productivity’ of folks with disabilities, chromosomal abnormalities, consequences of aging, or terminal illnesses. Or the ‘autonomy’ – yet again – of someone who sees no way out of an overwhelming situation (or no meaning in his/her life).

        That being said, secularism or non-theism is a faith – just not a theistic one. It’s a ghost-story for those who fear the dark, the difficult, or the duty-bound.

        (More in the next installment of “Stump the Chaps”…Stay tuned.)

        Hoping that was worth the wait -Smile-

        Liked by 1 person

  22. That was totally worth the wait, Nanda, thank you 🙂 and I totally agree with you. Robin often used to say that he didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist, which isn’t to say that he didn’t have faith, but he recognized that atheism is faith based just as much as religion is. Atheists often say that they believe in science over all else, but if that were true, they would be agnostics. There is no hard scientific evidence that God exists, but none that He doesn’t exist either: a true scientist would admit that he doesn’t know.

    Looking forward to your next installment of Stump the Chaps 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Wow! You wrote me a most informative thesis! Thanks much.

      Also I believe this to be correct: “Robin often used to say that he didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist, which isn’t to say that he didn’t have faith, but he recognized that atheism is faith based just as much as religion is.” Thus, a lot of people feel comfortable describing themselves as agnostics or in my case, a Deist as did some of our Founders; interesting enough, I had trouble clarifying my beliefs until I read a lot of early American history.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  26. I simply desired to say thanks once more. I am not sure the things I could possibly have carried out without these advice shown by you over such a theme. It has been the frightening matter in my opinion, nevertheless being able to see a expert mode you resolved that made me to leap with delight. I am happy for this support as well as believe you are aware of a great job you happen to be doing teaching the others through the use of your webblog. I’m certain you have never got to know any of us.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a reply to Judy Campbell Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.